i have avowed to be a Nice Person for the next few days in an effort to garner Good Karma, seeing that our Os results are coming reaaaaaaaaaally soon. i can see however, that i will not be able to keep to this and that this entry will most definitely break it. *sigh* it's not my fault really, its the existence of (insert insulting term here) people!

you see, i was reading the newspaper today and there was this really annoying letter sent in by somebody in the forum, whining about how "free mass displays of art should stop until Singaporeans know how to appreciate them".

he was whining about how such exhibitions are prone to vandalism but come on! the artist is placing his work in public, and risks like vandalism must be and have already been taken into account anyway. it's idiotically idealistic to be so outraged at vandalism - it happens. and instead of taking it so negatively and "oh nobody understands us artists, woe is me!" (he's an art and design student), we can/should(?) take it as society interacting with art. art after all, is about the public reacting to your work and if vandalism is their reaction..well.

i can agree that singaporeans are not all artistically aware such that they always have a profound appreciation for art, and that there is a general mass of plebians in our society who think art is just indulgent fluff (which admittedly, it sometimes is). but what, since when was vandalism unique to Uniquely Singapore? I don’t have concrete evidence either, but I’m assuming that there is hardly a place in the world where public works of art are not subjected to some degree of vandalism. again, IT HAPPENS. the society we live in isn’t perfect, and it just annoys me when people criticize singaporean society as if it’s a perfect utopia out there and we live in a barbaric state.

and for an ART student to assume perfection as the default for society, I cannot help but think how stupidly narrow his mindset and thinking must be.

this is not to say I would not be unhappy if MY own work was vandalized. if I had put it up, willingly, at the risks that the public poses, of course I would be upset but I would also accept it. it’s silly to do otherwise! it’s like, walking down a Taliban afghanistan in a bikini as a political statement, and then to get upset when they stone you to death. if it was put up AGAINST my permission *coughschoolexhibitscough*, then duh I would be thoroughly pissed.

if you want your work to be safe, then keep it at home swathed in layers and layers of cotton! don't show it to the world because hey the world is a daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaangerous place, didn't you hear?

i've always been puzzled by the way statues are always made off limits to wandering hands by lurking security guards. i suppose it's because i'm a very tactile person but my point is that the fact that it is a three dimensional work should mean that it ought to be experienced three dimensionally as well! to see is one thing, but to touch is an entirely different plane of experience. especially for sculptures, the textures and contours unfelt because we're not allowed to, what a waste!

to have it invisibly cordoned off seems to me as if they want the piece of art to be isolated from society, untouchable. literally, to be put on a pedestal. which doesn't make sense - because isn't art suppose to reflect society, it's a PART of society. there should be an interaction between the two, so when this statue -a reflection of life as the artist knows it- is placed out of bounds, it's unfair. if the artist was allowed to use society as material for his art, it seems imbalanced that we are not allowed to have it in OUR own sphere of living.

but you get my point, don’t you?